Kerala High Court
*Mr.George Joseph vs The State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16282 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
* MR.GEORGE JOSEPH,
S/O. V.J.JOSEPH,
THE SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION, DEVALOKAM ARAMANA, KOTTAYAM.
*(THE PETITIONER IS SUBSTITUTED AS
'MR.BIJU OOMMEN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.OOMMEN,
THE SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION, DEVALOKAM ARAMANA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686
038" AS PER ORDER DATED 10.06.2025 IN IA
NO.1/2025 IN WP(C)NO.16282/2015.)
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
2
3 THE SECRETARY
MALANKARA SURIYANI CHRISTIANI SABHA,
PATRIARCHAL CENTRE, PUTHENCRUZ.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV SAYED M THANGAL, GP- TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
3
S.MANU, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P12 proceedings of the District Collector, Ernakulam dated 21.03.2015. The District Collector decided to recoup the expenses incurred by the District Administration in connection with observance of 'Orma Perunnal' during 2012 and 2013 in the Thrikkunnathu St.Mary's Church from the petitioner and the Secretary, Jacobite Sabha. This decision was taken after hearing the petitioner and also the Secretary, Jacobite Sabha in compliance with the direction issued by this Court in Review Petitions filed by them in W.P. (C)Nos.18489/2014 and 18516/2014.
2. There is a long pending dispute regarding the ownership and administration of Thrikkunnathu St.Mary's Church, Aluva between two factions of Syrian Christians, 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 4 namely, patriarch and orthodox. On 25 th and 26th of January every year, memorial prayers are conducted in the church. On some occasions, untoward incidents happened during the 'Orma Perunnal' because of the disputes between Patriarch and Orthodox factions. Maintenance of law and order became a matter of grave concern during the 'Orma Perunnal' every year. During the 'Orma Perunnal' held in several years, orders were passed by this Court to facilitate the smooth conduct of the 'Perunnal'. The District Administration and police machinery have been involved in conducting the event every year since the disputes gave rise to a law and order situation.
3. Exts.P4, P5, P6, P7 and P8 are orders issued by this Court in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014 regarding conducting of the 'Perunnal'. Directions were issued by this Court to the Civil Administration and Police to take necessary steps to ensure smooth conducting of the 'Perunnal' without any disputes and frictions.
2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 5
4. Expenses incurred by the District Administration in connection with conducting of the 'Perunnal' were equally born by the factions during the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Ext.R2(a) minutes of a meeting held at Collectorate, Ernakulam on 16.01.2012 shows that the Collector directed both factions to pay in equal shares the expense incurred in installing security measures during 2011. Barricades and CCTV network were erected and installed.
5. W.P.(C)Nos.18489 & 18516/2015 were filed by the contractors engaged by the District Administration for erecting barricades around the church in connection with 'Orma Perunnal' of the years 2012 and 2013 as the expenses were not disbursed to them by the District Collector. By a common judgment dated 27.10.2014 this Court directed the District Collector to disburse the amounts due to the petitioners. Secretaries of the disputing factions were impleaded in the writ petitions as additional respondents. This Court made it clear that it will be open to the 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 6 District Collector to recover the amount from them. Further it was directed that if the recovery of the amount is not possible within the time limit of two months fixed, State shall pay the amount due to the petitioners and take steps to recover the amount from the additional respondents. The additional respondents did not appear despite service of notice.
6. Though the rival factions did not choose to appear before this Court they later filed separate review petitions in both cases. They disputed the liability. This Court disposed of all review petitions by order dated 15.01.2015. Judgment in the writ petitions was reviewed to the extent it directed the District Collector to recover the amount paid to the writ petitioners from the review petitioners. The following direction was issued:-
"There shall be a direction to the District Collector to hear the review petitioners before proceeding further with the recovery proceedings and to pass appropriate orders. Recovery will depend upon the orders to be passed by the District Collector after hearing the review petitioners. Therefore, the 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 7 review petitioners shall appear before the District Collector on 30/01/2015 at 11 a.m. Thereafter, they shall submit their explanation. The District Collector shall pass appropriate orders thereon within a further period of three weeks. If it is found by the District Collector that the review petitioners are liable to pay the amount, necessarily, the District Collector is free to proceed against the review petitioners in accordance with the Revenue Recovery Act. However, till a final decision is taken, no action shall be initiated against the review petitioners. It is made clear that if the District Collector is intending to proceed against the review petitioners, necessarily, the same shall only be after duly complying with the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act."
7. The District Collector heard the representatives of the rival factions in compliance with the direction issued by this Court in the review petitions and passed the impugned order dated 21.03.2015 thereafter.
8. Sri.Martin Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that liability to bear the 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 8 expenses incurred by the District Administration cannot be fastened on the petitioner. He made submissions regarding the long pending dispute between two factions for the control of Thrikkunnathu church. He submitted that the rights of the petitioner were upheld by the civil court long ago and the rival faction was trying to interfere in the affairs of the church, ignoring the binding judgments of civil courts. The learned counsel submitted that issues arose in connection with the conducting of the 'Orma Perunnal' on account of illegal interference by the rival faction. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner did not seek any arrangement or protection during the relevant years, 2012 and 2013. The petitioner was not responsible for any tensed situation and was not involved in any activity resulting in deterioration of law and order. The learned counsel submitted that the rival faction was creating troubles and therefore if at all the District Administration had any right to claim reimbursement 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 9 of expenses, only the trouble making faction was liable to bear the burden. The learned counsel submitted, by referring to various provisions of the Kerala Police Act 2011, that the demand for reimbursement of expenses made by the District Collector was not supported by any provision of law. He also contended that in the impugned Ext.P12 order, the Collector has not pointed out any provision of law enabling the District Administration to raise such a demand. He further submitted that the petitioner's faction had also shared the expenses on some previous occasions as it had approached the Court on those occasions seeking directions to the District Administration and Police. Learned counsel referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in District Superintendent of Police v. George [2000 (1) KLT 628] and submitted that the claim raised in Ext.P12 is not sustainable in the eye of law. He, hence, contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 10
9. Learned Government Pleader Sri.Tony Augustine submitted that necessary precautions were taken by the District Administration and Police during 2012 and 2013 for smooth conducting of the 'Orma Perunnal'. Contractors were engaged for erecting barricades and ensuring CCTV surveillance. He pointed out that the rival factions were permitted to participate in the Perunnal on conditions. Time slots were fixed for each faction. It was also stipulated that the devotees shall be permitted to enter the disputed premises only in small groups. There was restriction with respect to spending of time in the church premises by devotees. Ensuring that those conditions were followed and averting tension was a serious task undertaken by the District Administration and Police. Erecting barricades and installing CCTVs were necessary under such circumstances. He pointed out that the expenses incurred in this connection were shared equally by the rival factions in 2009, 2010 and 2011 though under protest. He pointed out that in 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 11 Ext.R2(a) minutes, it is specifically recorded that the District Collector directed both factions to equally bear the expenses incurred in 2011. He pointed out that in 2012 and 2013 also, indisputably the District Administration and Police took care of the situation effectively by deploying sufficient number of police personnel and other officers and also by making crowd control arrangements including barricades and CCTV surveillance. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in view of Sections 62 and 82 of the Kerala Police Act 2011, the District Administration was perfectly justified in directing the rival factions to reimburse the expenses. He also relied on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in District Superintendent of Police v. George and contended that the recovery of expenses by obstructionists was approved by this Court in the said judgment. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand both factions can be considered as obstructionists as they were causing 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 12 hindrance for smooth conducting of the 'Orma Perunnal' because of rivalry. He submitted that the state exchequer cannot be burdened for such purposes and the District Administration was therefore perfectly justified in demanding that the rival factions shall bear the expenses equally. He also contended that the petitioner had contributed towards the expenses incurred during several years. He further submitted that a representative of the petitioner was also present in the meeting conducted in 2012 as discernible from Ext.R2(a) minutes. No protest was raised against the direction of the District Collector to remit the expenses for the year mentioned therein. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to refuse to pay the share of expenses. He contended that the writ petition is without any merit.
10. It is an indisputable fact that tension prevailed in connection with the 'Orma Perunnal' in Thrikkunnathu St.Mary's Church for long. Even now no quietus has been achieved in the 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 13 dispute between the rival factions of the community. Exts.P1 to P9 orders and judgments reveal the history of the rivalry and interference by the courts on various occasions. For several years the 'Orma Perunnal' was conducted smoothly only on account of appropriate directions issued by this Court. Repetition of untoward incidents during the Perunnal was avoided with the vigilant intervention by the District Administration and Police machinery in compliance with the orders issued by this Court from time to time. It cannot be disputed that without the intervention of the District Administration and Police the Perunnal could not have been conducted smoothly, permitting all believers to participate in the prayers.
11. It is to be noted that the petitioner had also shared the expenses incurred by the District Administration earlier. However, the petitioner refuses to share the expenses with respect to 2012 and 2013. The other rival faction has paid half 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 14 of the expenses incurred by the District Administration.
12. I note that arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was mainly focused on the law regarding bearing of expenses for police protection. He submitted that none of the provisions of the Kerala Police Act permits the Collector to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P12. He also made reference to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in District Superintendent of Police v. George [2000 (1) KLT 628]. In the case at hand, the District Collector has demanded that both rival factions of the community shall share the expenses incurred for arranging barricades. The said demand cannot be equated with a demand for payment of cost for affording police protection. Hence, I find the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the provisions of the Police Act and the judgment mentioned above unacceptable in the context of the present case.
2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 15
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently submitted that the right of the petitioner's faction was declared by the civil court and therefore the rival faction had no right to interfere with the affairs of the church. He submitted that the responsibility of tense situation arising on the occasion of 'Orma Perunnal' every year was solely attributable to the rival faction and compelling the petitioner's faction to bear the expenses was unreasonable. I do not find it necessary, in the case at hand, to make any observation regarding the rights of the petitioner's faction or the rival faction.
14. Obviously, tension arose in connection with the conducting of 'Orma Perunnal' as neither faction was prepared to accommodate the other even on an occasion of remembering high priests buried in the seminary. Hence I find merit in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner faction cannot be permitted to contend that it had no 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 16 responsibility in tense situation being created.
15. It is discernible from the common order in the review petitions produced as Ext.P10 that this Court had directed the District Collector to consider the issue after hearing the review petitioners and further it was directed that in case the District Collector found that the review petitioners were liable to pay the amount it will be open to the Collector to proceed against the review petitioners in accordance with the Revenue Recovery Act. The Collector thereafter considered the matter in great detail and finally concluded that the expenses incurred was not for any public purpose but for averting factional feud between the rival parties. The Collector also observed that in case adequate security was not provided the situation would have escalated to a volatile situation. Thus, the Collector concluded that the amount shall be recovered from the parties. I do not find any grave error in the said view of the District Collector. The District Administration was actually burdened by the factional feud. As 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 17 directed by this Court the Collector considered the issue comprehensively. The other faction has paid the amounts. In my view, the petitioner faction also ought to have paid their share gracefully instead of approaching this Court again in the above writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of this case, discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution need not be exercised.
In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:55201 W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015 18 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16282/2015 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO. 5/81 OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 31-3-2003. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATD 10-4-2003 IN CMP NO.
2098/2003 IN A.S.NO. 262 OF 2003 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.S. 5 OF 1981 FILED I.A.NO. 2196/2001 BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT (DISTRICT COURT) DATED 3-8-2002.
EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN WPC NO. 2684/2009 DATED 23-01-09 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO. 248/2009 IN A.S.NO. 262/2003 DATED 22-1-2010.
EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO. 226/2011 IN A.S.NO. 262/2003 DATED 24-1-2011 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. 166/2013 IN A.S.NO. 262 OF 2003 DATED 23-1-2013 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. 172/2014 IN A.S.NO. 262 OF 2003 DATED 24-1-2014 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27-10-2014 IN WPC NO. 18489 AND 18516 OF 2014 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN R.P.NO. 1040/14 AND CONNECTED REVIEW PETITIONS DATED 15-1-2015.
EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN EXPLANATION DATED 30-1-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P12- TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 21-03-2015 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.